Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice

<p>The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into...

وصف كامل

محفوظ في:
التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
المؤلف الرئيسي: Benedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308) (author)
منشور في: 2022
الموضوعات:
الوسوم: إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
_version_ 1864513567108104192
author Benedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308)
author_facet Benedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308)
author_role author
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Benedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308)
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-11-22T21:15:54Z
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv 10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Treaty-text_Loyalists_Burden_with_Subsequent_State_Practice/21597861
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv CC BY 4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv International and comparative law
Law
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv Text
Journal contribution
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
text
contribution to journal
description <p>The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.</p><h2>Other Information</h2> <p> Published in: Netherlands International Law Review<br> License: <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8</a></p>
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
id Manara2_17a07939c0919e528f530e83c80b6cf2
identifier_str_mv 10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8
network_acronym_str Manara2
network_name_str Manara2
oai_identifier_str oai:figshare.com:article/21597861
publishDate 2022
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository_id_str
rights_invalid_str_mv CC BY 4.0
spelling Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State PracticeBenedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308)International and comparative lawLaw<p>The role of subsequent state practice in the procedural law of treaties, and in the determination of consent in the implementation of treaties have become the subject of much scholarly debate in recent times. The UN International Law Commission has devoted copious amounts of study time into these issues under the distinguished guidance of Georg Nolte as Special Rapporteur. Ph.D. theses and research monographs, journal articles and commentaries have appeared on the matter, but the debate persists. At one end of this debate are treaty-text loyalists that reject the potential of subsequent state practice to modify what they regard as ‘solemn oaths’ taken by states when they conclude and adopt a treaty. That ‘temporal declaration of consent’ by states to be bound by a treaty regime is for them sacrosanct. At the other end are analytical jurisprudence scholars who appear to insist upon a purpose test approach to the matter. This article evaluates treaty-text loyalists’ arguments under current state practice on treaty implementation across a number of disciplines. It shows that the view that ‘temporal consent’ supremely prohibits the modification of treaties through subsequent state practice is exaggerated. Moreover, the ‘solemn oaths’ perception of treaties is not supported by recent examples of treaty implementation.</p><h2>Other Information</h2> <p> Published in: Netherlands International Law Review<br> License: <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</a><br>See article on publisher's website: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8</a></p>2022-11-22T21:15:54ZTextJournal contributioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontextcontribution to journal10.1007/s40802-021-00185-8https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Treaty-text_Loyalists_Burden_with_Subsequent_State_Practice/21597861CC BY 4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:figshare.com:article/215978612022-11-22T21:15:54Z
spellingShingle Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
Benedict Abrahamson Chigara (14152308)
International and comparative law
Law
status_str publishedVersion
title Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
title_full Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
title_fullStr Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
title_full_unstemmed Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
title_short Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
title_sort Treaty-text Loyalists’ Burden with Subsequent State Practice
topic International and comparative law
Law